Latest Cases

Debt recovery small claim – Water and sewerage services – Statutory/contractual bases for charge – Jurisdiction. Sheriff Court: Allowing the defender's appeal and refusing the pursuers' cross-appeal in small claims proceedings the pursuers had raised for recovery of a sum said to be outstanding in respect of invoices for water, waste water and drainage services provided to the defender's shop, the court held that the sheriff was not entitled to find that the pursuers had a proper statutory basis for charging the defender, although he was correct to repel the pursuer's submission that the defender had a contractual liability, independent of statue, to pay the charges, and the action ought to have been dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction standing the sheriff's findings as to the contractual basis for charging the defender, with which the court agreed. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimants' judicial review proceedings, asking the court to quash the defendant Secretary of State's certificates providing for their removal to Malta. However, it held that the claimant in the second action had been unlawfully detained from 16 September to 7 November 2014, as the review of his detention had not considered a material consideration. 

European Union – Regulations. The General Court of the European Union ruled on the application by Iran Liquefied Natural Gas Co., for annulment of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (concerning restrictive measures against Iran) in so far as those acts concerned it. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Family Division struck out an application to commit the respondent to prison for contempt of court, in circumstances where there was a serious defect in the order upon which the application to commit was based, and it was not a situation where the procedural defect could be waived. 

Family proceedings – Reporting. The Family Division ruled that the risk of 'jigsaw identification' was not a reason in itself to withhold the publication of a judgment of the Family Court. Accordingly, it held that a family judgment, which had previously been withdrawn from circulation to the public, should be published in its original format, with a reporting restriction order prohibiting the names of the children and their present whereabouts being reported. 

Order – Variation. The Commercial Court ruled that the claimant British Virgin Islands (BVI) company, which had been struck off the register in the BVI, continued to have capacity as a claimant, entitling it to bring proceedings. However, it dismissed the company's application to vary an order, which required the company to give security for the defendants' costs of proceedings concerning an insurance claim where there was no material change of circumstances and where to do so would result in the court substituting its assessment for that which the judge had made. 

Adoption – Practice. The present proceedings arose out of the adoption of a child who had been born to the claimant. The Family Division, in dismissing the claimant's claims for certain declarations under the Human Rights Act 1998, held, among other things, that the making of an adoption order always brought pre-existing rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as between a birth parent and an adopted child to an end. Those rights had arisen from, and co-existed with, the parent-child relationship, which was extinguished by adoption. 

Costs – Orders for costs. The claimant challenged the order that he pay the defendant Secretary of State her costs of £400 for acknowledgement of service and summary grounds. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, gave guidance on the application of the indemnity principle to the Secretary of State and the Government Legal Department. It then held that there was not the remotest scope for the argument that £200 per hour was an unreasonably high rate. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division granted the husband permission to appeal from an order made in financial remedy proceedings arising out of the parties' divorce, on the ground that an event within Barder v Barder (Caluori intervening) ([1987] 2 All ER 440) (Barder) might subsequently have occurred and the conditions in Barder were or might be satisfied. 

Local authority – Statutory powers. The Queen's Bench Division awarded the claimant parents damages of £10,000 each, in circumstances where, while the initial removal of their children from their home had been lawful, and a proportionate and necessary response to the need to safeguard them from harm, the actions of the defendant local authority in retaining the children away from their parents after the expiry of a police protection order had been unlawful and, therefore, the interference with the parents' rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had also been unlawful.